Ex-AG Mandelblit Admits Netanyahu Probes Differed From Standard Procedures
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified that some investigations into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were conducted under different standards than those applied to ordinary citizens. Mandelblit confirmed that while there was suspicion, there wasn't yet "reasonable suspicion" for a full probe, a threshold usually required for regular individuals. Netanyahu's lawyer argued this constitutes prohibited discrimination, while Mandelblit defended the practice as necessary for public officials.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former AG Avichai Mandelblit admitted Netanyahu probes differed from standard procedures for ordinary citizens.
- Mandelblit confirmed suspicions against Netanyahu lacked "reasonable suspicion" for a full criminal investigation.
- Netanyahu's lawyer argued the differing investigation standards constitute prohibited discrimination.
- Mandelblit defended preliminary checks on public officials as necessary for public integrity.
- The exchange highlights a potential double standard in enforcement for senior public figures.
Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit acknowledged during his testimony in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial that some suspicions investigated against Netanyahu would not have led to similar proceedings against an ordinary citizen. Mandelblit's admission came in response to questions from Netanyahu's lawyer, Amit Haddad, who presented statements attributed to Mandelblit in a report by journalist Dana Weiss. These statements suggested that certain investigations against the Prime Minister were borderline and might not have been pursued if not for his position.
Mandelblit clarified the distinction between a preliminary review and a full criminal investigation. He explained that while authorities require a "reasonable suspicion" to launch a full probe against a regular citizen, senior public officials may undergo preliminary checks even without such a threshold. This, he stated, is to thoroughly examine allegations and avoid unnecessary clouds of suspicion over them, or conversely, to clear their name if unfounded.
When pressed by Haddad, Mandelblit confirmed that at the time, there was suspicion but not yet "reasonable suspicion" warranting a full investigation into Netanyahu. Haddad argued that conducting such detailed and intrusive checks under circumstances where an ordinary person would not be investigated constitutes prohibited discrimination and selective enforcement.
Mandelblit rejected the discrimination claim, asserting a clear legal and public justification for examining suspicions against high-ranking public officials, even without full evidentiary basis for a criminal probe. He maintained that this distinction allows law enforcement to carefully review information, refute baseless claims, or proceed if new evidence emerges.
The core implication of this exchange, according to the report, is the potential exposure of a double standard in enforcement policy for senior public figures. Mandelblit defends these preliminary checks as a necessary tool for public integrity, while the defense uses the admission to bolster its claim of discriminatory and selective prosecution against the Prime Minister.
